It was literally written and posted by Ed. How is it not safe all of a sudden?
1 Like
Can someone explain how core updates will be managed and how validators will update nodes? Which repo will be used and etc…
2 Likes
It’s not about Ed. It doesn’t matter who wrote it. But after thinking it over, I will vote YES to this proposal. Because the proposal itself is not bad. But my concern is with a certain group of validators. Inciting people. Because of which good changes will not pass and bad ones will pass. Even in this Agora there are examples that people do not think for themselves. They are not based on facts, they are based on what someone tells them. I don’t know if this community is quite ready for this.
1 Like
In this proposal,ED is naive.
This proposal obviously creates chances for certain validators and groups to rake over this chain.
In previous discussions,many people have suggested potential dangers in this opinion.That’s why ED abandoned it.
Now someone wants to take over,so send three minions to submit this proposal again.I already pointed out-it’s TCV.
Absolutely No with veto.
If it passes,we di/e together.
2 Likes
Did @ek826 put this up for vote? I idk. That’s inconsequential though. This proposal is not ready for a vote. Too many potential security risks are not addressed.
1 Like
Currently LUNC’s codebase is under control of TGF/L1JTF. Whatever “security risks” you feel are present are practically nothing compared to putting $500,000,000 of people’s investments under the control of a single org… nevermind the L1 team from said org that tried to sneak in blacklisting code and went behind everyone’s back to do it (all in an attempt to bail out Terraport and its bullshit rugg plays).
Either this prop passes and we get true decentralized access to the chain (along with all the potential security issues but many positive developments as well), or the chain can be declared deadd since validators act like lapdogs for the TGF and no one apart from the TGF and their clowns can even get the opportunity to build on LUNC. We’re at a point now that TGF + Allnodes = LUNC. Neither of them cares what retail holders like us think (if they did, they’d have pushed for decentralization long ago).
All of you here, trying to argue against this prop - get it through your thick skulls that TGF, a private org, now has full control over LUNC! The chain is neither decentralized, nor transparent, nor secure. We’ve handed the keys of the kingdom to literally a small handful of people (backed by Allnodes and controlled by Ed Kim). None of us bought into this project to watch it becoming TGF’s personal playground and Allnodes’ paypig!
4 Likes
Do we have another @RabbiJebediah ? If no, you have made a big U-turn. Your thin brain is leaking. Let me just refer to some of your previous posts on this topic.
Why are you now eating your words? What’s your motive? You have mentioned so much negatives in your previous posts, so it’s alarming that you want this prop to pass. Dont tell me you are a flip-flopper?
These are the potential security risks:
- Unauthorized access: If the commit hashes are publicly available, an attacker could potentially use them to access and view the source code of the project. This is particularly concerning if the code contains sensitive information such as passwords or private keys.
- Lack of access control: Using commit hashes alone does not provide the same level of access control as a canonical repo. Without access control, it may be more difficult to manage who has access to the codebase and ensure that only authorized users are making changes.
- Lack of accountability: Using commit hashes alone may make it more difficult to track who has made changes to the codebase, particularly if multiple developers are making changes simultaneously. This could make it more difficult to identify who is responsible for introducing a security vulnerability or other issue.
- Difficulty managing updates: If the commit hashes are used to identify specific versions of the codebase, it may be more difficult to manage updates and security patches. This is particularly true if the codebase is large or if multiple versions of the codebase are in use.
You really wanna start trading insults with me? Won’t end well for you, champ.
I changed my mind. It’s been 4+ months of TGF’s bullshit at this point. I’m sick and tired of their stranglehold on LUNC. Back when this prop first came out everything I wrote above was true (and still is), but all those issues pale in comparison to having literally 5 people in control of $500,000,000. The last couple of months have seen the TGF grow from a “non-profit org” into this tentacled monstrosity that’s strangled the entire blockchain to death. They refuse transparency, they treat the CP like their personal slush fund, and they have Allnodes behind them to shoot down any prop that even dares to bring into question anything they do. LUNC is practically their private property now, since validators do whatever the hell they want.
Yes, most validators are inept fools and don’t have the tech chops to handle these code updates. But guess what, that’s still far less of a problem than handing $500,000,000 on a platter to the fucking TGF! A private org masquerading as a non-profit that’s approved 0 grants, refuses to be doxxed, can’t be audited by the community, plays fast and loose with CP money, conspires with validators behind the back of LUNC holders (a la the recent blacklisting fiasco), does everything in its power to further centralized the chain under itself, and currently controls the L1 team as a tentacle of itself!
Christ almighty I used to support TR back in the day and wrote multisig props trying to get Tobias funded. Ask me how I feel about that today! This prop is 4 months old, it’s not like it came out yesterday! If you wanna be a pedantic clown why not include some of my quotes of support for the TGF when they first started up? You’re trying to frame a narrative here, and the worst part is that you’ve completely ignored all the points I made in the previous post.
Can you goddamn clowns just for once focus on the arguments themselves, instead of trying to character-assasinate me? I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s impossible to debate anything with you fools because you ignore FACTS and only focus on SUPERFICIAL APPEARANCES!
“Hurr durr what does Rabbi want? Durrrr what’s he doing now?! What is his motive??”
Dude who gives a shit?! Look at the facts, look at what’s happened to the chain over the past 4 months!
Fine, let’s break that down…
- Lmao you do know security measures can be added to avoid this, right? Right?
- Irrelevant. LUNC is an open-source project, no one group of devs owns the chain or access to it!
- Then get better devs, instead of the current clown circus that can’t even predict chain halt blocks.
- Good! Maybe validators will start earning their paychecks by having to pay attention now!
All your “security concerns” are pointless filler and trash. I’d take them now over having LUNC remain centralized under TGF’s doctrine of ineptitude any day of the week! Bonus point: LUNC is supposed to be a DECENTRALIZED BLOCKHAIN. DECENTRALIZED! NOT CENTRALIZED! Which means no one single group has core access to its repo! Doesn’t matter if it was Terra Rebels before, TGF now, or someone else in the future - NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER $500,000,000!
Next time, @Dannavan_Morrison, try to use that pulpy grey mass sitting between your ears.
I know you don’t have a lot of it, but you should still at least try to utilize it. 
So your side-kick @Mpowski has changed his mind and you have @Bilbo wanting this prop to pass.
@RabbiJebediah you are swimming with the tide of your buddies on this prop. Your stance on this proposal was never genuine or it could be that you did what you do best. Oppose! You are basically a flip-flopper on this prop and should not be trusted.
Where in the proposal is this addressed. All we have is a “naive” proposal.
"Even in open source projects, it is still important to manage contributions to the codebase and ensure that changes are made by authorized users. Many open source projects use a canonical repo such as to manage contributions and provide additional collaboration features such as pull requests and issue tracking.
In addition, even in open source projects, there may still be sensitive information such as passwords or private keys that should not be publicly available. In these cases, it is important to take steps to protect this information such as encrypting it or restricting access to authorized users."
How can we vote on a proposal when these things are not discussed?
@Bilbo’s team? 
Your cranium is getting smaller and smaller. It’s squeezing the slush inside 
. Do you honestly believe most validators can handle this? 
Security issues again.
I guess your pal has grey matter problem too!
The L1 team is building. The community is not ready ready for anymore drama. Until the complicated issues are resolved, the vote should be NO.
He did want to proceed to vote.
But we all mentioned that this is not work,at least for now it’s dangerous.
I think this is just his idealistic approach.But be taken advantage by someone.
1 Like
Don’t know, don’t care; unlike you clowns who move like cattle in herds, I do my own thinking.
Also, @Pholuna submitted this prop and @fragwuerdig co-signed it, not Powvski or Bilbo.
You’re pivoting. The aim of this prop isn’t to enact security measures, but to decentralize access to the codebase. There’s capable devs out there who’ll come build on the chain and make sure it’s safe once TGF’s stranglehold is broken. But until that happens, nothing will get done, because it can’t - the codebase is being held hostage by Ed and his TGF clowns (with the help of Allnodes).
So discuss them then. 
Look for ways to secure the chain.
Don’t just throw away the entire prop just because you run into a single problem.
And like I wrote above, all of this pales in comparison to the danger of a TGF-controlled LUNC.
Among others. I don’t want TGF or Bilbo’s crew. I want 20+ teams competing and working on the chain! Why is it always so binary with you people? LUNC is a chain with massive potential, why do you want to weigh that down by allowing only 1 team to work on it? The sensible approach is to open up access to any competent devs out there, and let them bring value to the blockchain. This is how it’s supposed to work - the present setup (TGF-controlled) is a grotesque perversion of crypto ethos.
Says the guy shilling and simping for grifters who are killing his investment.
It takes a special kind of stupid to support literal liars and thieves for months on end.
No, most validators can’t handle this. Which is why they should f*ck off and leave the chain!
LUNC needs dudes like PFC who know what they’re doing, not midwits like HCC or Classy!
Half the problems this chain has are due to idiotic validators who run on service providers.
Yeah, a tunnel down to China!
If this prop passes, I will never oppose your views again.
He was the worst in flip-flopping until you made your move. I am very disappointed in your about turn but not surprised. Why cant you just sit in a corner and be quiet? Even if the prop stood a chance of passing ; you just wrecked it. 
Ed only put this up and wanted to move ahead because TR controlled codebase access at the time.
As soon as they handed it over to him (and TGF), he immediately abandoned this proposal…
Ed never really gave a shit about decentralization, he justed wanted access and control.
And now that other teams are asking for the same, he’s ignoring them. Multiple people have sent him messages asking him to decentralize and democratize access to LUNC’s codebase, but he’s ignored them all. Yet he seems to be readily available to defend TGF whenever a thread about it pops up! 
Really makes you think!
There will come a day when y’all will realize that the goons from TGF are not your friends, and they don’t give a shit about LUNC or your investment. They’re here to secure overinflated paychecks for themselves, and they’ll drain the CP every quarter to do it even if it means blocking other capable devs from contributing to LUNC. But the grift can’t go on forever - just 3 months ago you’d all have been kissing Tobias’s feet, whereas today you’re all spitting on him. Same thing happened to Terra Rebels, and will happen to Ed and the TGF… it’ll only take a couple more months of their ongoing failures for people to finally open their eyes. Unfortunately, LUNC will be in a much worse place by then…
But hey, at least I’ll be able to say: “I told you so!”
I’m also looking forward to buying the bags of clowns like @Dannavan_Morrison for literal pennies.
I don’t give a shit what you do, you’re completely irrelevant.
It was never gonna pass because validators will never vote for anything that reduces TGF’s control.
Most of them are obedient cattle. They even refuse to vote on TGF transparency and MARS-LUNC props.
So how can the LUNC chain be decentralized when validators are the ones that control it?. Insignificant delegators like us wont make a difference in the outcome of any proposal. It is what it is; I stop voting on props.
My bag with LUNCs will never be empty. In fact I will put some more in it soon. Just keep on talking so the price of LUNC will fall; then I will fill up my bag.
Rabbi,look.A good willing also may cause damage.
ED I believe his every intention is good,but he definitely not good at politics.
Systemic issues are the main problem of every problem.It’s also the source of transferring good intentions to bad results.
That’s one of the main problems with POS networks and general voter apathy. Forcing validators to be more active in governance would be a positive change. Incentivizing holders to vote would also help (though it’s almost impossible to do in practice). Redistributing voting power and Oracle rewards throughout the active set would also immensely help (since top vals currently hold an inordinate amount of influence) But all of that is beyond the scope of this proposal. Main issue right now is decentralizing codebase access and control.
Yes but you can still apply pressure, and hold the TGF/L1JTF accountable when the screw up.
Don’t blindly support them just because they’re in a position of power today.
We’re gonna add 2 more zeroes in the coming months, you will sell.
It doesn’t take a lot to send this prop up for a vote and tell validators to support it.
But he refused to do this despite so many people from the community asking for it.
At some point you have to stop making excuses for these people, and look at the facts.
The first step to solving any problem is identifying it…
LUNC centralization is a problem; this proposal is the first step towards a solution.
Dont really care about such insults tbh.
Yeah that part is right. This prop was authored in January and since then a lot has changed.
Since he has a team of 5 devs who want to do the work, i want them to have such ability. They have my trust and I will support any means of them contributing to LUNC.
to prevent bots from voting with multiple accounts and altering the result of voting